Rice v. City and County of San Francisco
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:19-cv-04250
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Rice v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Beeler taxed the City’s full $19,469.61 in claimed costs after its trial victory.
Allison Barton Rice and the City and County of San Francisco; the City received an award of $19,469.61 in taxed costs.
What happened
In Rice v. City and County of San Francisco, Allison Barton Rice sued the City and County of San Francisco under the Fair Housing Act. After a trial, the jury found for the City, and the court entered judgment. The City then submitted a bill of costs totaling $19,469.61, which Rice challenged.
Rice argued that costs should be denied because of alleged misconduct, his financial circumstances, the possible deterrent effect on civil-rights plaintiffs, the importance of the issues, and the difficulty of the case. The court rejected each argument. It found that Rice had not shown that he could not pay the costs, that the amount was not prohibitive, and that the issues were not a landmark national matter or particularly complicated.
Judge Beeler taxed the full $19,469.61 in claimed costs. The order resolved the City’s bill of costs and Rice’s objections.
The detailed version
- Rice v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:19-cv-04250
- Laurel Beeler
- Mar. 31, 2024
Background
Allison Barton Rice sued the City and County of San Francisco under the Fair Housing Act. A jury returned a verdict for the City on June 22, 2023, and the court entered judgment on June 26, 2023. The City filed a bill of costs totaling $19,469.61, and Rice objected.
The claimed costs included service of process, transcripts, deposition transcripts and video recording, deposition exhibits, notary and court-reporter fees, discovery documents, trial exhibits, visual aids, and witness fees. The court reviewed the clerk’s taxation of costs anew.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally creates a presumption that the prevailing party should receive allowable costs other than attorney’s fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, allowable costs include certain transcript, printing, witness, copying, and related expenses. The party seeking costs must identify each item separately, provide supporting documentation, and show that the costs were necessarily incurred and legally allowable. A losing party seeking to avoid costs bears the burden of overcoming the presumption.
Analysis
Rice asked the court to deny costs based on recognized grounds including impropriety, limited financial resources, a chilling effect on civil-rights plaintiffs, a landmark issue of national importance, and close or difficult issues.
The court found no basis to deny costs for impropriety because Rice did not identify specific costs resulting from misconduct or bad faith. On financial resources, the court concluded that Rice had not shown an inability to pay the claimed amount. The court considered the income and other financial information discussed in the parties’ filings and noted that a payment plan could be available.
The court also declined to deny costs because of a possible chilling effect. Although Rice was a civil-rights plaintiff and arguably had modest means, the case involved an unusual factual context and the claimed costs were not prohibitive. The court rejected the argument that the case presented a landmark issue of national importance, reasoning that the issues were not unique or novel in the required sense. Finally, it found that the issues were not particularly complicated and did not warrant denying costs.
Disposition
The court taxed the full amount of the City’s claimed costs: $19,469.61. The order resolved the City’s bill of costs and Rice’s objections.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.